Talk:Peak oil

Proposed link

I propose this link : http://wiksa.free.fr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.61.183 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 June 2009

ABARE

Added a link to the Australian Energy: National and State Projections to 2029-30, ABARE Research Report to verify Australia's projected production peak. Thought it might be more relevant than BP's assesment. 220.101.72.170 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A: Graph on p.45 shows a peak in 2000 higher than in 2009

B: 2007 report on 2000 production levels is more credible than 2006 report on 2009 production levels.

-69.127.80.29 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A: Thats not true. They are close. The 2000 peak was 1438PJ (See Energy statistics - historical table l) and the projected peak in 2009-10 is 1451 PJ. Thats just for Crude. LPG production continues to increase (See as above, but Australian energy table h).

B: It is a 2007 report as well, and also incorporates 2000 levels into it. But it is an Australia specific report and so more likely to be accurate.

Yes it is a projection, but so are the totals of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. They are based on indigenous production, not total available resources.

I would accept that this info might need a caveat that it is subject to change. However, the previous entry gave the impression that oil and LPG production in Australia peaked due to supply. The ABARE report determines that oil production will decline because mature fields will start to deplete and there will only be minimal investment in new fields in response to market shifts. However, this report also estimated that Australia has about 2260 GL at 50% probability, or about 10 times current Economic Demonstrated Resources.

Finally please read the source more closely before telling me that I am misrepresenting it. I am not wedded to these stats, if you can find a source that counters it then fine, but BP's stat review is not it. In fact they both agree that production was high in 2000. I am just suggesting that this issue is slightly more nuanced than the BP's stats allowed for. In particular, this resource is legitimate and relevant and so must be taken into account and not just deleted WindyHaven (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A: The table you link to does not include the stats for 2009, so this sounds like wp:SYN. It also adds crude and gas in the same stat, so it's not really usable for our purposes anyway. Look at the table of crude production. I was about to say the page again, but I'm tired of repeating myself. It's pretty self explanatory.

B: It's a report published in December 2006, and the graph projects a 2009 level below that of 2000.

C: If the new fields are not being drilled, it is because they are not worth the investment and production costs. This is the limiter in Peak oil around the world, not just Australia. There will always be oil in the ground that is too hard to get to. 69.127.80.29 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought you were being deliberately obtuse about the date of report, so I checked and found I had actually put the wrong web address. The one that you were looking at was from 2006. This one is from 2007. Apologies, my mistake. Now if you look on page 45 of that report, there is a clear peak at 2009-10. As I pointed out, they are projections, but so are those of Kuwait and Iraq, and you are leaving those unmolested.

As to the mixing of crude and gas. Those stats actually include crude and NGL's (like propane, butane, and condensate)that you usually find together. While you might be technically correct that those aren't crude, I think you are splitting hairs.

By your own circular logic as the price of oil rises then it will become more economically attractive to extract oil, production will increase and Australia's peak will potentially move forward. So a slowdown in production in the past means that Australia has already gone over the edge? Couldn't there be a number of market driven reasons such as cheaper crude from overseas? Shouldn't the peak be based on Economic Demonstrated resources not rates of production? It seems feasible that as prices rise we will see a new peak.

Now, as I mentioned before this is a legitamite source and just because it does not agree with your narrow focus does not mean it can be dismissed. The argument is more nuanced than the article allows. WindyHaven (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Deliberately obtuse", "molest", "circular logic", "narrow focus". Them's fightin' words. Please don't assume that it's OK to be rude on Wikipedia just because you can't see the other people involved.

As for the causes of a peak, you're rehashing old ground here. There was an editor a while back that thought we should discuss this, but really it doesn't matter why the peak occurs if it occurs. Resource exhaustion is just another way of saying "I can't suck it out for the market price." There's always more oil left. Check the archives if that doesn't make sense.

Now to the differences between projections for Kuwait/Iraq etc, those are areas that have been growing in production along a clear arch. Extrapolating their peak makes much more sense than saying there was a peak last year... every single year! For the Aussie data, it's really bizarre that there was a peak in 2000 that was accepted by ABARE in 2006, but not in 2007. Seems weird to me. Glad you finally found the right link, even if you still haven't put the right link in the article. I'd say the thing to do is leave the 2000 peak, but place a caveate that ABARE thinks there might be a final peak in 2009. I've done that now. 69.127.80.29 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are fighting words? Last time I checked those are the words of a robust academic discussion! The only one remotely personal was 'deliberately obtuse' which I think applies to both of us because we were both sure we were right! I could not understand why you were not correctly interpreting the graph I thought was in front of you, and I am sure you thought the same of me.

But, you did raise some good points, and it probably would be a good idea to keep both sets of data on there until something more current comes along. Though if your assertion above is correct, is is really so strange to have multiple peaks? Production could decline and then increase again as price increases. I mean, its useful as a guide, but it does not seem like peaks really tell us everything about future availability of oil resources? Especially given that it is predicated upon such an arbitrary guide in 'market price'. As I said before, these arguments are a lot more nuanced then one set of stats communicates WindyHaven (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hubbert peak is the global maximum. There can be local maximums depending on a lot of different factors, including whether one is studying a well, a field, a country or a planet, as well as the physical and economic context and technology available. Most of today's restrictions are physical (the mega fields in the Middle East which still produce the vast majority of our petroleum are declining). Some are economic (the tar sands of Canada and Venezuela and the deep wells in the G. of Mexico are only profitable when oil is above $70-80/bbl). But either way, the peak is the peak and it tells you to either start looking other places or start using different fuels.

The utility of the Hubbert curve can be examined at Hubbert peak theory. There is also a lot of discussion in the archives: Talk:Peak_oil/Archive_2#I_don.27t_get_why_the_'everybody_panic'_angle, Talk:Peak_oil/Archive_2#Peak_Oil_"theory", Talk:Peak_oil/Archive_2#"the_world_has_adequate_reserves_for_more_than_a_century" 69.127.18.249 (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ideas to expand peak oil novel

just was looking for a novel and found the section to small. could be enriched by the content of http://www.energybulletin.net/node/44031

the article speaks of 4 more novels, one from 1909(!)

--Stefanbcn (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nations in decline of oil production

I didn't found the list of nations, where the oil production is in decline.This site: [Oil in decline] has a list with nations and its year of decline of oil production. This list is below:

Click on show to view the contents of this section

1955: Austria 1966: Germany, 1970: Libya, Bahrain, Venezuela, Ukraine 1971: USA. 1973: Canada, Malaysia 1976: Iran, Rumania 1977: Indonesia 1978: Brunei, Yemen, Trinidad 1981: Tunisia. 1982: Chile. 1983: Peru, Albania. 1986: Cameroon. 1987: Hungary, Netherlands. 1988: Croatia, France. 1991: Turkey. 1992: Pakistan. 1995: Syria, Egypt. 1996: Gabun. 1997: Italy. 1998: Uzbekistan, Argentina. 1999: Yemen, Colombia. 2000: Australia, Great Britain. 2001: Oman, Congo. 2002: Denmark. 2003: Norway, China, Mexico. 2004: Qatar, India, Malaysia, Ecuador. 2005: Thailand.

Agre22 (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

1. This article isn't about decline, it's about peak. See oil depletion.
2. Those numbers aren't "declines", they are peak years.
3. That list does already exist in the article, albeit with clear sourcing.

- 69.127.18.249 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

IEA figures distorted

This, published in The Guardian says that the US are manipulating the IEA to make them say that there is more oil than there is. It should probably be included. Smartse (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But that's not what the piece says. It says that an (unnamed) whistleblower says that's what is happening. There's no reason we should treat an anonymous source as credible without independent corroboration.LeadSongDog come howl 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article refers to two anonymous sources, one current senior IEA official and one former.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey of Geologists

This may be of interest/value. I don't have time to get into it right now, but someone else might want to take a look. Supposedly, 70% of geologists surveyed consider Peak Oil to be a serious concern.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with some of the "keywords" related to the main page

A) Peak oil is not based on observed production rates of individual wells, Arps quantified the majority of type curves used by petroleum engineers during the 40's, utilizing exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic declines. None of these resemble a bell shaped curve, and Hubbert certainly never used individual well production in his literature, he aggregated from much higher levels, both during his original 1949 and 1956 papers, as well as his later works. Colin Campbell correctly references the standard field level production profile in his late-90's book ( sitting somewhere in my office ) and that isn't a bell shaped curve either. Its the aggregation which is bell shaped, and its above the field level ( Hubbert used states, large geographical areas and countries ).

B) Depletion has nothing to do with falling supply. Or reserves for that matter. Depletion starts the day the first barrel is produced, and continues until all recoverable oil has been removed from the reservoir. The RATE at which depletion occurs is a function of production and reserve revisions, but certainly the statement as written is inaccurate.

C) As a petroleum engineer doing SEC proven reserves I can honestly say that Hubberts method is not used, and has not been recognized as any sort of standard practice by the SPE, as a means to predict reserves from wells. Arps did that related to decline curve analysis, unless the engineer wishes to use an approach developed a couple decades back by Fetkovitch.

D) Unpublished statistical studies also show that Hubberts method, or its variants using the linearization method also have near zero applicability to a field level solution.

All of these issues are with the introduction paragraph. How population, demand ( peak oil is at its core only a supply side argument ), and the basics of agriculture got involved later in the article is beyond me.

Petroleum Supply: If you are going to lead with a quote from someone saying the easy stuff is gone, you should do it right. JP Lesley said about the same thing in 1886 in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania....why not include that quote as well? If nothing else, it will give the reader some idea that these claims have been going on longer than the lifespan of some quoted earlier as "oil industry experts".

Consequences of Peak Oil: Why not lump the earlier die-off claims, as well as the argriculture, population and demand scenario's in here instead of up front? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HikeMySkirt (talk • contribs) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your very interesting remarks. IIRC, the first time the peak oil was predicted, it was in 1919, by USGS, predicted for ... 1928 - obviously no previous editor is aware of the fact. I am afraid this article makes a mincemeat of many things, mixing truths (oil is limited) with approximations (Hubbert curve~actual curve) and outright opinions (peak oil date can be predicted). There are more problems to this article, including POV : most references and bibliography point to ASPO and friends, which is not normally permitted in a Wikipedia article. The Hirsch report is brushed off and its conclusions are warped. The total misunderstanding of economic laws (demand is *not* a mere function of availability, price is *not* a function of the sole demand, etc.), the americacentrism (the whole economic life depends on oil, no oil reduction programme is possible without damaging the economy) are other problems with this article that should be worked upon. The incredible length of the article actually saves the day, as you may suppose a normal reader will certainly never read it entirely. How this article may have reached a "Good Article" status is very surprising.--Environnement2100 (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I call bullshit. HikeMySkirt is an SPA that only shows up once in a blue moon to stir up some hornets, and Environnement2100 has nothing but a disruptive history here (funny that they both suddenly reappear on the same day). What's more, the issue being raised has been dealt with thoroughly in the past. The total world reserves prediction hasn't changed much since the 60s, and comparing the predictive techniques of the late 1880s to today's technology is one of the silliest straw men I can think of. I move we speedy archive this discussion. Anyone that wants to know more can see the archives for discussions on this issue, and this for a snippet of Environnement2100. 66.90.185.182 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what an SPA is, but I do know what several decades of professional experience have taught me, and I stand by every comment I made, and after several years of watching this Wiki, I am also reasonable certain that my comments have not been handled in any way whatsoever. And I said absolutely nothing about JP Lesley's predictive technique because he did not have one, and instead relied on near personal knowledge of every well, farm, township, county and formation ever encountered in his world until that point in time.

I move we actually dump every piece of dogma, myth, speculation, conjecture, accountants acting as references and every other discredited piece of information in the entire wiki and go back to the fundamentals which started this mess in the first place ( Hubbert, 1956 ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HikeMySkirt (talk • contribs) 05:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, hes right, we still use the predicting curve that Hubbert made in 1956. Sounds so accurate to me. Seriously, I think i have to agree with the others here, just try to keep it balanced and NPOV. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

George Bush

Sombody should remove the George Bush remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, you could have done that yourself, but thanks for the note. --FormerIP (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Timing of Peak Oil section and subsections

Although I have followed peak oil for 10 years now I regret not to have contributed here earlier. A good and thorough article overall. For this section however, I see two concerns:

1. The terms "optimistic" and "pessimistic" include the POV that late peak is better in all respects (online definition of optimistic: "expecting the best in this best of all possible worlds"). Correspondingly about the term "pessimistic". Clearly without dispute, some things will be better/easier with a late peak (and more difficult with an earlier peak) while other things relating to pollution for example, might very well end up being worse. Proposed new subsection names would be Early Prediction and Late Predictions, or Earlier and Later, or something along those lines.

2. Either in another section, or expanding this section to "Timing and Level of Peak".

There is a vast, huge difference between predicting peak at 110mdb in 2012 (for example) and predicting a peak at 90mdb in the year 2012. This variable has profound impact, as profound or in some scenarios more profound, as farf as the effects on society, than the date alone. To have a useful summary of predictions/analyses side by side, this variable needs to be included.

There are a few mentions scattered here and there, but not organized as the timing is. If someone has time, a two dimensional graphic (one axis for how early, the other for what level the peak would be) is one possibility. Without that, then at least adding careful parenthetical or otherwise linked information about "at X mbd" next to every date prediction "will peak by the year Y" would allow readers who scan one prediction after another in this section (which does a decent job of listing predictions from many sources) to get a more useful sense for how sharp an impact on society is implicit (all other factors being equal) in each respective prediction.

Peak in the year 2020 at 115mbd? Or peak in theyear 2020 at 88mbd? Very, very big difference... Make it easy for readers to have this variable in the predictions (or state "level of peak not predicted" for those who refuse to include that estimate but only estimate date of peak)as they scan and juxtapose all the analyses we have listed side by side in the current form of the section..--Harel (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: #1, I don't think the words introduce any sort of bias in the article, but perhaps there are more neutral ways of stating the same thing. Earlier vs. Later feels a bit awkward and informal to me ("earlier than what?"), otherwise I'd be for the change.

Re: #2, if there are RS sources which discuss these issues in the same way you suggest, then by all means be wp:BOLD. If it's any more than a retelling of RS sources though, it's unfortunately novel synthesis and not really appropriate for this venue (regardless of real-world veracity). 69.127.18.249 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

External links trimming

I did some trimming of the ELs. There is more that could be done. If someone gets a chance, please move the links specifically about oil depletion and petroleum (rather than specifically about peak oil) to those articles. Also, some of the links in "Articles" should be used as references, to flesh out sections in the body. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)